09-06-2004, 07:02 PM
"As for WWII Czechoslovakia, a country in the center of Europe like that is kind of a must have for someone bent on controling the whole landmass."
Yes, exactly. Czechosolvakia was rich *strategically*, a concept which has nothing to do with GDP, and everything to do with geography. Its military needs, like Switzerland's, were quite great, because people wanted to conquer them. Their military needs were proportional to the strength of *those people who wanted to conquer them*. No economics at all here. Even then, why did Germany attack it then? Might it have something to do with Hitler, again, not an economic force? Why did Germany want to conquer at all? And were its military needs not influenced by Nazi ideology as much as by their economic (or other) situation?
Perhaps there might be an argument "Military needs are relative to the comparative value between a group and their neighbours." But even that has terrible holes in it. Hezbollah isn't worth squat all, in any real sense. What creates their military need is not their value, but their attempt to attain it. And Israel would have to spend less on its army if they didn't have to fight them over something which only has comparative value because Hezbollah wants it. Military needs are relative to the strength of your opponents. That's it. Why they are your opponents is another question, and one which is nowhere near as simple as your "value", even speaking inclusively.
Jester
Yes, exactly. Czechosolvakia was rich *strategically*, a concept which has nothing to do with GDP, and everything to do with geography. Its military needs, like Switzerland's, were quite great, because people wanted to conquer them. Their military needs were proportional to the strength of *those people who wanted to conquer them*. No economics at all here. Even then, why did Germany attack it then? Might it have something to do with Hitler, again, not an economic force? Why did Germany want to conquer at all? And were its military needs not influenced by Nazi ideology as much as by their economic (or other) situation?
Perhaps there might be an argument "Military needs are relative to the comparative value between a group and their neighbours." But even that has terrible holes in it. Hezbollah isn't worth squat all, in any real sense. What creates their military need is not their value, but their attempt to attain it. And Israel would have to spend less on its army if they didn't have to fight them over something which only has comparative value because Hezbollah wants it. Military needs are relative to the strength of your opponents. That's it. Why they are your opponents is another question, and one which is nowhere near as simple as your "value", even speaking inclusively.
Jester